About Me

Growing up in a small New England town with a mother who was an antiquarian it was inevitable that I would be exposed to old things. After graduating from UMass/Amherst I lived in Connecticut, taught school, married, and raised three children in suburbia. A move to Newburyport MA renewed my interest in all things old. This background has now evolved into research, writing, consulting and all the things I love to do.

Prudence Fish

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

BEAMS, BEAMS AND MORE BEAMS

A TERRIBLE FAD THAT HAS BECOME THE NORM

     This is an open letter to owners of old houses and prospective owners of old houses.  This post is about BEAMS!

     Every homeowner, especially new homeowners, take much pride in their new home ownership.  At least that is my observation.  Certainly all want to beautify their houses and in doing so express their taste as they make their new house their home reflecting their interests and style.  I can't believe that they would deliberately damage the biggest investment of their life.  They wouldn't knowingly choose to decrease its monetary value, beauty or integrity by hurting the house would they?

     So why do so many do damage to their new house anyway?

Crude brown beams in an otherwise nice room.
     It has to be because they don't know any better and are jumping on a destructive band wagon.  No one has cautioned them and so they follow so many other owners of antique houses and do as they do, like sheep.  They assume that what they are doing is restoration; clueless that they are making grave and irreversible mistakes.  Removing any of the original fabric of the house is a mistake.

     For forty years people have said to me, "Pru.  You have to see this house!  It is all restored.  You're going to love it.  The owners have exposed the beams and...."  "Stop right there", I want to scream at them.  "I don't want to see another house with exposed beams...ever!"  (unless it's first period, of course)

     From the earliest building dates in the 17th century the houses in the New World were post medieval.  That doesn't mean crude.  Early settlers brought their building style with them from England.

     From the mid 1600s until the 1720s, approximately, the time at which the earliest houses appeared, they were built with very heavy framing and this framing was exposed. This is called the "First Period" architecturally speaking.  These houses were not rough.  There were no adz marks showing.  All the edges of the beams, especially the summer beams were dressed with chamfers. There were no sharp edges.  A 17th century house would have dramatically large beams dressed with fine and bold chamfers. We call these decorated frames.

This photo clearly shows the decorated edge, (chamfer) on the summer beam.  This is a first period room
and is of the period when the framing of the house with its chamfers was meant to be seen.  After this period
the framing members of the house were carefully hidden away and not meant to be seen by human eyes.  This is
a room from Ipswich, MA removed to the Metropolitan Museum in New York.  Ipswich has the largest collection
of early houses.

     That really concludes the story of correctly exposed beams in America and it is only circa 1725! So unless your house is about 300 or more  years old don't even imagine that it ever has had exposed beams and don't go looking for them!  Perhaps some did; there are always exceptions but don't count on it.

     There are not too many houses remaining that were built before 1725.  That means there should not be too many appropriately exposed beams.  Period!  Where I live in Gloucester, MA, a town settled in 1623, there are only about ten houses remaining from the first period and perhaps as few as two date to the 17th century.

     In the first period when exposed beams were legitimate they were white washed, not left brown.  So beamed ceilings should be a rare feature.  Right?  And they should be whitewashed

      Moving into the second architectural period from let's say from about 1725-1730 to the 1790s, depending somewhat on where you live, many, many houses were built.  If there were protruding framing posts in the corners or a summer beam above, all were covered (boxed)  with smooth boards with beaded edges.  These boxes were painted the same color as the rest of the woodwork in the room. Plaster covered the floor joists above.

     After 1725 (as well as before) refinement was what builders and home owners were striving for.  Practically all woodwork was painted or would be as soon as finances, time or choices were arranged.  There are occasional exceptions  but we are talking about the norm.

   Somewhere along the way the error of exposing rough hewn beams with adz marks and rough joists became synonymous with restoration.  Nothing could be further from the truth. It is wrong, wrong, wrong

Lovely room but why the rough beams?
 


     The imagined necessity of exposing ugly brown overhead has caught on and taken off much like the destructive movement to get rid of your old wood window sash in order to buy cheap replacement windows that cost a lot of money and have to be replaced again in twenty to thirty years. Homeowners have fallen hook, line and sinker for these destructive fads.  When I see brown splintery beams and the underside of the second floor floorboards I want to cover my eyes.  It is painful to look at a destroyed ceiling knowing the plaster has been hauled off in the dumpster.

     Whether on the Internet or in Realtor ads it is obvious that a smooth plaster ceiling is an endangered species.This damage is evident when you see the photos of otherwise nice old houses restored with love by a caring owner with a lot of hard work and a lot of money who has not done their homework.

A nice old house from the 1830 until they did this.   Ugly ceiling
unpainted mantel, stripped and urethaned floor,  and bricks
surrounding the firebox that should have been parged.
Unfortunately rooms that look like this are everywhere and they
should not be considered restored

 Save the integrity of your house and do your pocketbooks a favor.  The worst plaster ceilings can be saved.

    If you live in an antique house and still have plaster ceilings, for Heaven's sake, leave those plaster ceilings alone!  Rough beams belong in the barn.

This concludes the rant that has been percolating in my mind for some time.  You will all probably think of exceptions, I can think of some myself, but don't dwell on them.  They are few and far between.





Thanks for reading and thanks for putting up with my tirade.  Everywhere I look lately at what I think should be a lovely old house I am disappointed when I find that the house has already fallen prey to the ceiling wreckers.

Pru


3 comments:

  1. Hello Prudence, Here in Ohio, basically all beams in houses are examples of "phony-colonial," on a par with aluminum eagles, but that never stops people. It would be interesting to examine the history of the desirability of exposed beams, including Colonial kitchens which were part of every museum house, "quaint" inns and tearooms, and Hollywood movies.

    Even the Victorian period has its equivalent nightmare--exposed brick!
    --Jim

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a lovely blog! I love your knowledge of architecture and your passion for history. As for those beams... I'm glad to see that this irks someone other than me. But, what really, really makes me angry is when someone desecrates a period home by tearing down walls for the dreaded open concept look.

    Best,
    Scott

    ReplyDelete
  3. This post is very informative. Thanks so much for writing it. People who own old houses should do serious research before "restoring" anything. The worst thing I have ever heard of was down the street from us, when someone bought a two-story log house and faced it with faux stone. A newspaper article lauded it as "restored log house." Now, who could say that and who would publish it? Crazy!

    ReplyDelete